4.7 Article

A unique form of mental retardation with a distinctive phenotype maps to Xq26-q27

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 469-479

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/302772

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report a novel X-linked mental retardation (XLMR) syndrome, with characteristic facial dysmorphic features, segregating in a large North Carolina family. Only males are affected, over four generations. Clinical findings in the seven living affected males include a moderate degree of mental retardation (MR), coarse facies, puffy eyelids, narrow palpebral fissures, prominent supraorbital ridges, a bulbous nose, a prominent lower lip, large ears, obesity, and large testicles. Cephalometric measurements suggest that the affected males have a distinctive craniofacial skeletal structure, when compared with normative measures. Obligate-carrier females are unaffected with MR, but the results of cephalometric skeletal analysis suggest craniofacial dysmorphisms intermediate between affected males and normative control individuals. Unaffected male relatives show no clinical or cephalometric resemblance to affected males. The blood-lymphocyte karyotype and the results of DNA analysis for fragile-X syndrome and of other routine investigations are normal. Linkage analysis for polymorphic DNA markers spanning the X chromosome established linkage to Xq26-q27. Maximum LOD scores were obtained at marker DXS1047 (maximum LOD score = 3.1 at recombination fraction 0). By use of haplotype analysis, we have localized the gene for this condition to an 18-cM genetic interval flanked by ATA59C05 and GATA31E08. On the basis of both the clinical phenotype and the mapping data, we were able to exclude other reported XLMR conditions. Therefore, we believe that a unique recessive XLMR syndrome with a distinctive and recognizable phenotype is represented in this family.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available